The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[Ziggurat]

The zero-point field is electromagnetic in nature, and believe it or not, every particle that has arisen from the vacuum i.e. the blackbody emission spectrum of photons all came from the zero-point electromagnetic sea of energy. That's my point, and that the end of that.

Nope. The CMB was emitted by a hot hydrogen plasma. It was very much NOT a zero-point phenomenon. The zero point rather obvious cannot emit photons - if it could, then it wouldn't be the zero point, would it?

 

[ben m]

Maybe you missed the part of the infinite density? The universe is constantly expanding, and the CMB does not seem to be diluting due to the process, which means it is quite constant on cosmological standards.

Wrong wrong wrong. The CMB is decreasing in energy density, frequency, and temperature. It's at 2.7K now; it was hotter and denser in the past; it will be cooler and longer-wavelength in the future.

 

[sol invictus]

Maybe you missed the part of the infinite density? The universe is constantly expanding, and the CMB does not seem to be diluting due to the process, which means it is quite constant on cosmological standards.

It's clear you've conflated the CMB with dark energy, perhaps based on misunderstanding some article you read. You're wrong. They're not the same. In fact, as we've been telling you, they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Now go learn something, and stop wasting your (and our) time with this stupid nonsense.

 

[ben m]

The zero-point field is electromagnetic in nature, and believe it or not, every particle that has arisen from the vacuum i.e. the blackbody emission spectrum of photons all came from the zero-point electromagnetic sea of energy. That's my point, and that the end of that.

So you are saying that "photons that came from the vacuum come from the vacuum". Whatever. The CMB photons did not come from the vacuum--they came from a hot plasma of 75% (by mass) hydrogen, 25% helium, and trace D and Li.

OK, back to the vacuum zero point. The quantum vacuum is not specifically electromagnetic---maybe you only think about the electromagnetic component of it because you read about the Casimir Effect somewhere, and that specifically probes the EM part of the vacuum. But there are zero-point fields for all of the fundamental forces---weak, strong, and electromagnetic.

 

[Ziggurat]

energy displacement is simply the same as saying matter displacement... the displacement of matter is entropy duh.

Uh, no. Matter and energy are not the same thing. And your definition of entropy is... non-standard, to put it charitably.

Secondly, its not salad. Obviously i need to do more homework for someone who doesn't know jack about the topics they like to argue:

You're making a fool of yourself. All the regulars know Sol is very knowledgeable about the topic.

Read this. You might learn something and contribute hopefully to a geniune and intellectual conversation instead of your insipid and inconsistent ramblings:

[PDF] GENERAL RELATIVITY AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
“the kinetic energy associated with the ZPF-driven Zitterbewegung is what provides the .... Connecticut (Physics) pointed out that the general relativistic results of .... basic form, 3N, to within the error of observations. ..... generate a nonzero cosmological constant whose value is some 120 orders of magnitude ...
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf - Similar -
by B Setterfield - 2003 - Cited by 3 - Related articles

You're telling Sol to read that? Well, you clearly haven't. That "quote" obviously comes from a search engine result, and is basically random fragments from within the text. Individually, those fragments mean nothing, and are not even located near each other. Furthermore, your source doesn't say what you said. What you said is incoherent rambling. Your source appears to be written coherently. If you were trying to convey the ideas contained within that source, well, you failed. Whether that's because you don't understand those ideas, or because you just suck so bad at writing, I cannot tell with certainty. But I lean towards both.

 

[Singularitarian]

Oh yeh? Are you gonna make yourself more like a fool?

The thermodynamical law of conservation is broken at the ZPF, and the negative potential vacuum gives birth to real matter as there is some equivalent energy added to some quantized space and time. So don't give me your ''whatever'' piss, because i will not sit here and repeatedly do your homwork for you. How many corrections does one require before they actually begin to listen to what you say, instead of needlessly refuting them causing more time and more patience and more hastle?

 

[Ziggurat]

Clear spamming and ignorance of evidence which essentially can't be refuted due to the references i have provided, has now left this discussion retarded.

Well, this discussion is retarded, that much I'll agree on.

I implore the moderator(s) close this thread, due to the possibility of favouritsm arising

If you can't handle a debate, that's not the moderator's problem.

Either they cough up basic evidence to show why their claims are valid,

That's been done. Multiple times in multiple threads. And you consistently ignore it.

then i do not wish to take any more of this charade where i am wrong, simply because ''i am''.

You get criticized because you keep saying stuff which makes no sense. If that gives you a persecution complex, I suggest you seek counseling.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh yeh? Are you gonna make yourself more like a fool?

The thermodynamical law of conservation is broken at the ZPF,

Conservation of energy? I presume that's what you mean. That's sometimes referred to as the 1st law of thermodynamics, but I've never seen anyone refer to it as simply the "thermodynamic law of conservation". Nope, ZPF doesn't violate that. Many who claim it does use such claims to justify their belief in perpetual motion machines. Do you believe in the possibility of perpetual motion machines?

and the negative potential vacuum gives birth to real matter as there is some equivalent energy added to some quantized space and time.

Word salad. What is "negative potential vacuum"? And there are no established theories which successfully quantize space and time.

So don't give me your ''whatever'' piss, because i will not sit here and repeatedly do your homwork for you.

Of course you won't do your homework for me. Hell, you won't even do your own homework.

How many corrections does one require before they actually begin to listen to what you say

I've been wondering exactly that.

 

[ben m]

Your source appears to be written coherently. If you were trying to convey the ideas contained within that source, well, you failed.

Actually, the quoted source, the Journal of Theoretics, isn't even a mainstream journal---at the very least it appears to be open to crackpot contributions, of which there are several easily-recognizable examples in their table of contents. The quoted article is itself of extremely dubious reliability.

Singularitarian, since we are talking about very very basic cosmology: rather than Googling randomly for papers which support your ideas, why don't you look for support in mainstream textbooks? The CMB is clearly and simply explained in, for example, Chapter 44 of "University Physics" by Young and Freedman, or in much more detail in Chapter 6 of "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Peebles. The former can probably be found in your local public library, the latter in any university library and even the better university bookstores.

While you're there, the librarian can explain exactly why cutting-and-pasting Google search summaries is not the best way of cross-checking yourself to catch mistakes.

 

[Reality Check]

The mathematical definition is called ''an error of approximation,''and actually the measured CMB density of frequency flow that corresponds to a nearly homogoneous energy displacement, Einstein said the Cosmological Value (which is the same thing as the total energy in the universe) should be close to zero, maybe with a value of 1. Instead we measure a superfluous amount of energy resident in just one single quantum ground state of temperature which says there is

magntitudes more than the visible energy in the vacuum.

This means the vacuum has an infinite amount of energy, and what renormalizes is still not fully solved, but there is some indication of a mechanism of a quantum cut-off point.

What is this gibberish?

Define "density of frequency flow" and "energy displacement". They sound like the made up terms that we see from a typical crackpot who know nothing about physics.

The CMB has nothing to do with the cosmological constant. Einstein died before the evidence that the cosmological constant is non zero was found. I guess you are channeling his spirit !
Or just lying.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Gibberish. There's no such thing.

More gibberish. What's an energy displacement?

He couldn't possibly have said anything of the kind, because that makes no sense at all.

More physics term salad.

I think the physicists on this board hire people to post inanities so they have a chance to show off.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I learn a lot from the people who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[Darat]

I've moved some recent posts that breached the Membership Agreement to AAH.

To all participants - drop the personal attacks and other breaches of your Membership Agreements or face further moderation action which may include suspension.

Also if you wish to discuss matters of moderation do so in the correct section of the Forum i.e. Forum Management.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[themusicteacher]

Then maybe it is true that the academic labels are simply words that represent a wide range of physicists who think they know physics.

Doctor, we've got a clever one here!

Could someone please just tell me where they're handing out the PhD's in physics at the door so I can pick one up? Oh, what was that? They aren't? But some dude on an internet chat board just said...Well, you know, some dude. He says a lot of things that sound physics-ey, I can tell you that. Well, he did toss out his credentials then proceded to discredit the entire idea of degreed credentials when someone pulled rank on him. He obviously knows what he's talking about. I mean, I bet he's working on a ground-breaking paper that will turn modern physics on it's head and, once and for all, rid us of this notion of the farcical "Big Bang." Of course, it won't get past the physics "establishment" since they want to silence all the truth-tellers. This guy's gonna be big, I tells ya.' Big!

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, the quoted source, the Journal of Theoretics, isn't even a mainstream journal

I didn't say it was right, only that it was written coherently.

 

[Singularitarian]

Hey, here is the hubbub.

I will buying my next packet of cigerrettes tomorrow morning - money probably that will probably be given to the fundings of the Afganistan War, so that some soldier will have relatively the same cost as the single bullet in his gun. But
what is even more disturbing is that he is probably stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. He can either use that money i gave him to kill himself
in the head because he is about to be captured and tortured, or he can just shoot the next man he see's, despite any statistical difference in numbers.

Worst yet, this is what scientists do. They have a single bullet in their gun, and they can either shoot themselves with it (which is the theory by analogy)
or they can use it to shoot down the next theory that comes their way. Guess what? There is only one bullet, and since the conditions of the universe are not seemingly
willing to change desprately for a very long time, the big bang will go on forever, like some Greek Mythology of Religion, where the real God, is best as
described as being ''Dues Absconditus...'' - -- - a God hidden from man - -- - as much as the final theory will be.

 

[Singularitarian]

I didn't say it was right, only that it was written coherently.

Next you will be qouting geosites.

Or maybe you will stick with your beloved wiki? Not that you'd understand what most of it says anyway... meh.

 

[Reality Check]

Hey, here is the hubbub.
....

More gibberish and word salad.
Any actual science ever going to come from you Singularitarian?

 

[Singularitarian]

Didn't you check the OP,

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Ziggurat]

Next you will be qouting geosites.

Do you mean "quoting geocities"? Because geosite is rather off-topic. And I don't think I've ever quoted any geocities pages. It would be silly to, since geocities is going to be disbanded later this year.

Or maybe you will stick with your beloved wiki?

Wikipedia is convenient. Do you have a problem with it as a source?

Not that you'd understand what most of it says anyway... meh.

I can understand Wikipedia pages just fine. But nobody seems to be able to understand you.

 

[Singularitarian]

Wiki is not reliable... here is a quick one off my head:

The main actor who played Mozart in Amadeus was published for a good many month that he was happily married to a woman called Ceciel, or something like that. Turned out it was rubbish and the man was gay. (one of many wiki examples of false information, by the way)

Wiki is made by the public for the public, and physics scientists in the general public is far and few between a to fabricate or become biased in the publication of a file on wiki, so yes; I do protest against it.

And if anyone does not understand me, then they should simply ask what i mean. This is just logic, a component most of us homosapians have which you seem to be unfortunately lacking in.